Fordham Institute's "Fund the Child" Ohio proposal offers measured presentation, but falls short in use and understanding of empirical evidence concerning its claims
Contact: Bruce D. Baker, (785) 864-9844; (email) bbaker@ku.edu
Kevin Welner, (303) 492-8370; (email) kevin.welner@gmail.com
TEMPE, Ariz and BOULDER, Colo. (April 7, 2008) - A new report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute promotes decentralized governance for public schools and a system of portable funding in which funding would follow students directly to their schools, largely bypassing school districts. This report is part of a larger, national campaign by Fordham and others promoting the idea of "weighted student funding."
An examination of the Ohio report for the Think Tank Review Project finds it to be of higher quality than most past reports on the topic, praising it for taking "a huge step in the right direction" in the proposal's details as well as for its avoidance of "bold but unfounded claims" for the benefits of decentralized governance. But the review also finds that the report fails to use or even acknowledge relevant, empirical research and that it never confronts the reality that systems using weighted student funding can show, and have shown, the same sorts of inequities that the report's authors decry in past funding systems.
The report, Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy and Portability to Ohio School Finance, was published by the Fordham Institute and written by analysts at the University of Dayton's School of Education and Allied Professions and at Public Impact, a North Carolina consulting firm. It was reviewed for the Think Tank Review Project by Professor Bruce Baker of the University of Kansas.
The report advocates for Ohio to implement a fully state-funded system of decentralized school governance, open enrollment school choice, and weighted student funding. Specifically, it argues that state funding should follow children to the public schools (rather than the districts) they attend; that per-pupil funding amounts should be weighted according to children's individual needs and circumstances; and that schools should have flexibility in how they spend the funds they receive.
Professor Baker had his strongest praise for the report's acknowledgement that between-district funding inequities remain a problem--an obvious truth, but one that has too often been obscured by advocates of weighted student funding. "Unlike some earlier reports, which cast stones at large urban districts for being the sole source of remaining inequity in school finance, the present report addresses more appropriately the statewide problem of within- and between-district inequities in financial resources and teaching quality," Baker writes in his review of the Fordham report. "This is a huge step in the right direction."
Baker also credits the report because it "avoids bold but unfounded claims that research has found decentralized governance to necessarily lead to improved student outcomes." And he has praise for its "much more measured approach toward recommendations for implementing the reform," primarily its suggestion that states carefully and methodically phase in the proposal.
"However, the current report continues to fall short in its application of, or even reference to, relevant peer-reviewed policy research, or rigorous empirical analysis that might provide useful insights to policymakers," Baker writes. "In particular, the report overlooks several studies presenting alternative methods for evaluating cost variation across school settings and children that might aid in the design of better weighted student funding formulas." Moreover, Baker points to clear inequities the weighted student formula system already in place in Cincinnati, highlighting that the reform could easily replicate existing funding problems.
Nevertheless, Baker concludes, this new report "takes important steps forward from previous reports" promoting weighted student funding. He commends the report for its argument on behalf of "a true, state-governed, equitable system of funding for Ohio schools and the children they serve."
CONTACT:
Bruce Baker, Associate Professor
University of Kansas
Faculty affiliate, Institute for Policy and Social Research
(785) 864-9844
bbaker@ku.edu
Kevin Welner, Professor and Director
Education and the Public Interest Center
University of Colorado at Boulder
(303) 492-8370
kevin.welner@gmail.com
About the Think Tank Review Project
The Think Tank Review Project (http://thinktankreview.org), a collaborative project of the ASU Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) and CU-Boulder's Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC), provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
Kevin Welner, the project co-director, explains that the project is needed because, "despite their garnering of media attention and their influence with many policy makers, reports released by private think tanks vary tremendously in their quality. Many think tank reports are little more than ideological argumentation dressed up as research. Many others include flaws that would likely have been identified and addressed through the peer review process. We believe that the media, policy makers, and the public will greatly benefit from having qualified social scientists provide reviews of these documents in a timely fashion." He adds, "we don't consider our reviews to be the final word, nor is our goal to stop think tanks' contributions to a public dialogue. That dialogue is, in fact, what we value the most. The best ideas come about through rigorous critique and debate."
**********
###
The Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) conducts original research, provides independent analyses of research and policy documents, and facilitates educational innovation. EPRU facilitates the work of leading academic experts in a variety of disciplines to help inform the public debate about education policy issues.
Visit the EPRU website at http://educationanalysis.org
###
The Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder seeks to contribute information, analysis, and insight to further democratic deliberation regarding educational policy formation and implementation.
Visit the EPIC website at http://epicpolicy.org
###
**********